 |
 |
The reasons for "disclosure" given by Paul mostly are separable from the admissions process. They seem to be subsumable under two headings - it's good for the student to make preparations for any needed services prior to arriving at the institution, and it's good for the institution to know how many students will need services (and what kinds of services are needed). Of course, these functions can be satisfied as well, and perhaps better, after the student is admitted. Not all who are admitted to an institution decide to come to it. So presumably there are provisions for interchange of information between the individual who has been admitted and the institution after an admissions decision has been made. That's as good a time as pre-admissions for student and institution to discuss whether any services are needed and how accessibility can be achieved. Post-admissions, both student and institution have made commitments to each other. Presumably, (1) admissions decisions should not be affected by whether an applicant has a disability. Institutions should not reject a student because someone supposes that people with that individual's disability can't succeed in a particular course of study - that's stereotyping. Nor (2) should institutions admit a student for the reason that doing so will bring in extra funds - presumably the cost of any services a student uses and the cost of providing them zero each other out. If disabled people bring in more money than they cost to educate, that's exploitation - it's like the old custodial system in which the nondisabled are paid to take care of the disabled, where disabled people are pressed into certain life-courses to generate funds to support nondisabled people. If, on the other hand, services to disabled student are perceived as costing more than the institution receives for providing them, there is great temptation to cherry-pick during the admissions process by turning away students who are feared to need expensive services. And given the exigencies of state funding, it takes almost no event at all to shift from the perception that the state provides more than enough money to educate disabled students to the perception that not enough money is provided to compensate for the burden of doing so. Points (1) and (2) are reasons for delaying the opportunity for individuals with disabilities to identify themselves until after the admissions process. There are, however, at least two good reasons for retaining such identification in the admissions process. Data about the percentage of applicants with disabilities who are admitted can be useful in revealing institutional discrimination (if the percentage is much lower than the admissions rates of other types of applicants). And knowledge of which individual applicants are disabled is useful if the institution has a program to diversify its students by increasing the representation of students with disabilities. It's usually apparent whether institutions' admissions' procedures are reviewed by an enforcement agency to identify discrimination, and whether affirmative admissions programs exist. If not, the request for self-identification pre-admission rather than post-admission becomes suspect. Such suspicion is understandable in a student from the U.S. Thirty years ago, bias kept students identified as African-American from being admitted to universities. Subsequently, courts began to admit statistical data as good evidence of bias, and universities launched affirmative action programs so that their admissions data would not show patterns of bias. So the "progressive" view about requesting racial identification pre-admissions shifted from being against it to being for it. U.S. law has never permitted the use of similar statistical data to demonstrate bias against people with disabilities, nor have institutions embarked on affirmative action programs for people with disabilities. The Rehabilitation Act required such affirmative action, but this provision was never enforced. So it's not surprising that a U.S. student would be suspicious of a pre-admissions disclosure requirement. But perhaps UK institutions generally have well-enforced anti-disability-discrimination measures and also have equal opportunity affirmative action programs to increase the diversity of their student population by increasing the representation of disabled students (increasing diversity to benefit students' education is a less-self serving reason than increasing the institution's acquisition of funds. Probably, information that this is the state of affairs would be most reassuring. So knowing more about the effectiveness and enforcement of the equal opportunity policies and processes to which Paul refers below might help Ron and his student - just a guess. On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Paul Reynolds wrote: > I can sympathise with the ethical issue and the autonomous right to > self-identify, but from the point of view of someone who has had some > decision-making capacity in admissions to academic programmes (that they > are social science programmes may be a factor), I'd make the following - > I accept practical - comments. > > 1. Most institutions have robust equal opps. policies and admissions > processes that would be triggered by rejection of students on such > grounds. Larry is right that at present in UK universities money talks, > and some HEI's, my own included, have accrued money and credibility by > doing exactly the opposite of excluding disabled students, in actively > encouraging disabled students to apply and developing services and > facilities to reflect their diverse needs. That includes recruiting both > disabled and non-disabled staff who want to help > > 2. If a student does not self-identify and then arrives in week 1 for a > class and needs equalising facilities, he or she does a number of > things. They disadvantage themselves because these facilities sometimes > take a little time to organise and that can impact upon studies.They > pressure those who would hope to facilitate equal learning opportunities > because its one of the most pressured times of the year and we are > suddenly faced with a new set of needs or demands to respond to > immediately - and sometimes, if resources like teaching rooms are > concerns, can do little about. They also do not allow an institution to > say 'look, we have to be honest and say our provision is not sufficient > here - even if it should be' (and SENDA now sets requirements for HEI's > to conform to). One of my concerns, for example, involve some students > with issues of mental health issues that are admitted for the financial > benefit of the HEI, but with insufficient care to support the student. > > 3. If more students are statistically noted as disabled, more resources > will flow the way of disabled students in the future. > > I do understand the ethical issues and the issues of autonomy, and, of > course, some people will wish not to take advantage of the sort of > facilities/assistance that some HEI's try to offer disabled students and > so will also not want to disclose. I think, however, on balance I would > disclose - and then be more than willing to complain if rights and > dignity are not met and preserved. > > paul > > > > Paul Reynolds Senior Lecturer in Sociology Programme Leader in Sociology > and Social Psychology Centre for Studies in the Social Sciences Edge > Hill College St Helens Road Ormskirk Lancs L394QP Tel: 01695 584370 > email: [log in to unmask] > > >>> Larry Arnold <[log in to unmask]> 08/19 11:39 am >>> > Admittedly I have only limited experience having applied to only two > universitys recently however I am familiar with the format of the form. > > One could of course go semantic on them and protest one does not have a > disability but a condition that leads to one being disabled by societal > devaluation but even I have not gone that far. > > It is a tick the box affair with a nebulos category to fill in if one has > more than one disability. It is not for admission purposes but because most > (maybe all) universities do have disabilities offices these days where one > can sort out the help or accomodations one needs. Also I guess in the UK > (not from overseas where funding is different) it relates to ones applying > for disabled students allowance. > > I doubt my ticking the boxes affected the outcome in either case for me. In > case number one I would have been offered an interview on completion of a > pre interview essay task, however I rejected the course as unsuitable (that > means crap in my language.) > > In the second case, it made no difference to being accepted, ability to pay > being a far more important determinant. The information I doubt much was > passed to the department teaching the course, all I recieved was some invite > to discuss things with the disabilities office. > > I guess it realy makes no difference to your rights whether you fill it in > or not because you usually have to fight for them anyway. > > Personally I see no reason not to actually accompany the form with a letter > saying that you do not wish to disclose whether you do or do not have a > disability for ethical reasons on the grounds you are outlining here and so > are leaving it blank. That way they would probably initiate a discussion on > it so you could gain clear assurances in writing that you could later pursue > if you believed you had been discriminated against. > > Larry > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: The Disability-Research Discussion List > > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Ron Amundson > > Sent: 18 August 2003 21:35 > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: "Outing" disability on college entrance applications > > > > > > Dear List -- > > > > I have a former student who is applying to graduate school at several > > British Universities. Each application asks the direct question: "Do you > > have a disability" and then gives a list of disabilities. > > > > The student is accustomed to the U. S. (of course) where it is up to the > > individual whether or not they self-identify as disabled. She > > prefers to do > > so only after she meets people. She is worried about the > > implications of the > > direct question. > > > > 1) Might outing herself on an entrance form hurt her chances for > > acceptance? > > > > 2) If she lies and says "no", might that disqualify her for disability > > services if she is accepted? > > > > 3) If she lies and says "no", might that be grounds for deportation, and > > transportation to Australia or something? > > > > In case it's relevant, she's considering applying to the University of > > Hartfordshire, the University of York, and St. Andrews. > > > > Thanks for any advice. > > > > Ron > > > > > > Ron Amundson > > University of Hawaii at Hilo > > Hilo, HI 96720 > > [log in to unmask] > > > > ________________End of message______________________ > > > > Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List > > are now located at: > > > > www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html > > > > You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page. > > > > ________________End of message______________________ > > Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List > are now located at: > > www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html > > You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page. > > ________________End of message______________________ > > Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List > are now located at: > > www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html > > You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page. > ________________End of message______________________ Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List are now located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.